I'm so glad that we elected a city council which can make decisions.

It's too bad that all five seats aren't up for election this fall, but given the council's track record who wants to run? When did we have a council that actually got anything accomplished and didn't cause a lot of controversey in the community?

Council members in our areas, in particular, are going the way of all politics.......nowhere.
The COUNTY OF SAN MATEO is representative of our Country's total economy and our politics.
Unless you have the money of a Meg Whitman, you are obsolete and nobody has respect or cares to listen to you.
The future looks even more bleek given the issues on which we touch which meet with mostly apathy unless it deals with progress like uniting the state with things like HSR.....meantime, there is just a lot of bitching.

"This will be spun as, 'The council was unsure of their decision, and wanted to send it to the public,'" Mr. Boyle said.

No spin needed. It's exactly just that! Our elected council is too fricken chicken to make an important decision. What a waste of valuable time with presentations, meetings, deliberations, yada yada yada. They got greedy trying to share in the Bohannon project's potential profitability, and when their lame negotiation tactics failed, they decided to wash their hands and put it to the will of the people (Pontius Pilate style)
James has it right. Three seats that are up need 3 new council people who can and will do the job they have been elected to perform.

Dear Ol' Homeboy

There are 4 members of our Council who voted to support the project, certify the EIR and Amend the General Plan. They in fact *did* make an important decision. And this coalition of 4 crosses "party" lines too. They have found that the benefits of this package outweigh the impacts. Given this town's prior history, that is significant. I agree with Gibboney's editorial -- after making that decision, it was wise for the Council to choose to get it affirmed by the voters since it is one of the biggest developments ever, and requires a General Plan Amendment. Also, proactively putting i ton the ballot was the least cost alternative - a referendum was certain, and a drawn out referendum process would cost over $50,000 at a time of budget deficit, And proactively framing a positive debate should help elevate the discussion about sustainable growth in Menlo Park, which will pay dividends far beyond this one project.

It was the right decision on both the substance of the project and the process, and the Council should be commended for moving forward strongly now.

All you will see in this forum is old no growthers and tea baggers.

Don't even waste time in this forum trying to get accurate information.

It appears that neer-do-wellers widely participate in this forum as well as evidenced by the inane and fatuous postings of "Truth" who continuously spews nattering nabobs of negatism.

Hank:
Where are you? Ms. Slocum has weighed in and we look to your response. "Get it straight" has to have been authored by one of Bohannon's consultants and it smells of Slocum. Of course, sending this project to the voters was the right thing to do, especially with the referendum threat hanging in the air. However, isn't is pathetic that the city's planning decisions are being influenced by such a devious crowd?

There's a bigger issue here. How can this city approach planning honestly? Spending a million dollars on the downtown study may protect the council as it tries to look to the future with the yapping dogs from the 1950s undermining the progress.

Would an updated general plan be the answer? In the four years that this council has been sitting, there has been no action to put the long and arduous process of updating the general plan on the agenda. Piecemealing approvals for development has its downsides and yet, property owners shouldn't have to wait for the council to do their job. I don't believe this council is anti business or anti property rights but, if it would put its pedal to the metal and codify the city's overall plan, we could ignore the referendum gang and give developers a fair playing field, In the meantime, the council needs to govern.

The city is between a rock and a hard place.

Ah, my fans miss my acerbic wit. Gail is licking her wounds from prop 16. So we should take it easy on her. NOT!

Paul Collacchi has extensive transportation experience. Gail Slocum does not- unless you count driving a Prius to the CALTRAIN station. She is very myopic when it comes to urban planning. She only wants zero net carbon footprint. Nothing else matters.

Paul, on the other hand, is acutely aware of the gridlock that will most certainly occur if this project is approved unless Bohannon addresses the increase in traffic. The Field of Dreams quotation "Build it and they will come" is truly appropriate in this situation. Only they will come in automobiles. And most likely, increases in vehicular traffic were not used in the footprint calculations that Gail so highly exults.

Bohannon agreed to reduce vehicle trips to and from the project by 17 percent below those guesstimated by the EIR. How can he control or even reduce that?

I am not saying that the project should be killed but traffic should be more seriously addressed for this project to move forward. One possibility would be to contribute to extending the Bay Front Parkway to Seaport Boulevard in Redwood City. Gail has her carbon offsets. We need traffic offsets too.